The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

SunCountryGuy01[edit]

Final (0/13/0); ended 01:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC) - Per WP:SNOW. - —GFOLEY FOUR— 01:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC) (Originally scheduled to end 23:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Nomination[edit]

SunCountryGuy01 (talk · contribs) – I have been on Wikipedia for just a few months and have made over 2600 edits however I am a long time IP editor. Once I came on Wikipedia I have been absolutely obsessed. I have assisted many users in areas such as copy-editing an AfDs. I have performed many copyright infringement investigations. Most of my edits have been associated with law enforcement, intelligence and espionage. I have also created a WikiProject on Intelligence entitled: WikiProject Intelligence. I formerly edited under the name Gabriele449. I had to change my name after I was harassed by email. I have a legitimate alternative account called SunCountryGuy012. I have such user rights as reviewer, rollback and filemover which were all flagged on my account on the user requests pages, with the exception of the filemover right which was given to me by NawlinWiki. You can see my requests for this right on this diff: [1]. Thanks for your consideration. Jessy T/C 22:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: If I am granted administrator, I will mostly be taking part in G12 CSD nominations. I also plan on taking part in the AIV and the RFPP noticeboards. I also plan to be spending most of my time at the AfD and RfD noticeboards in which I have experience in both. I also plan on working in the PERM, giving permissions to trusted users.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Mainly, I have contributed to initiatives in copyright infringement. I have not been very active in this area lately because I have been exploring other areas in Wikipedia such as vandalism. I have recently been mastering Huggle use. I have created over 25 articles, my best including Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents, FBI Atlanta Field Office and Witness Insecurity. My time will also be spent closing AfDs and RfDs. I also enjoy reviewing Wikipedia:Articles for Creation submissions.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have not been in any major conflicts with other users. However, with my experience in copyright infringement I have been contacted numerous time through email and on my talk page regarding my reason for requesting speedy deletion. It is copyright infringement that in fact caused me to be harassed which is another and the main reason I stooped my work with copyright infringement.


General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]


Oppose[edit]
  1. Not now - Sorry, but you've only been active for three months and have less than 3,000 edits. With nothing but respect, I don't think you have enough experience. Personally, I like to see 4,000 edits and a year of editing, and this is a relatively low standard compared to many other users. Best regards, Swarm X 23:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
    Over the years I've been on Wikipedia (I am a former IP editor, neglected to mention this in my statement) I have seen editors with administrative privileges with less articles created and less edits and, while they did create an account before me, a haw droppingly long period of inactivity. Jessy T/C 00:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that the candidate reverted the WP:NOTNOW closure of this RfA without a word to the person who closed it confirms the fact that they're not familiar enough with Wikipedia processes and practices to consider adminship at this moment. Swarm X 23:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering Baseball Watcher has almost the exact same stats as this candidate... I don't think he should have been closing the RFA anyways. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 23:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that comment. Baseball Watcher 00:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't state an opinion on Baseball's actions and they're not really relevant. If the candidate is willing to revert the closure of their own RfA, how am I supposed to trust that they will follow process in other situations? Baseball's actions are debatable, hence they should have been debated, not reverted by the candidate, of all people. Swarm X 00:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I have to agree; I'm sorry, but, in my opinion, you're far too inexperienced at the moment to be handed the mop. You're doing a good job, though! If you keep it up, in some six months, you should pass with flying colours. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I also have to agree. Sorry but I just don't think that you have the experience yet. I'd suggest that you use the following months to learn everything about Wikipedia and try re-applying in say six months time.--5 albert square (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Not now, sorry. You clearly look like a smart and keen Wikipedian, but you do need to have been around a good bit longer than this to get to know the ropes - the great majority of your edits have only been this month -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. C'mon man Three months just simply isn't enough time. I do see great potential, however.--Hokeman (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. While you're a clearly a well-meaning editor who wants to help, frankly I did a double take when I saw this RfA. You've been participating in RfAs for the last couple of weeks and I've seen you oppose candidates who have more experience than you do. Why would you stand at RfA if you don't meet your own standards? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Insufficient content creation. The Fukishima article is one where almost NONE of the referenced content was done by you. The second article had 10 refs and was of the "copy a website" kind (not journals, newspapers, web, books, etc.). Third article was tiny and had two refs. And has a tag since FEB asking for more refs! All of the contributions are very recent as well. Building referenced content is an important thing to understand as a moderator at this encyclopedia project.TCO (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong oppose - This user, after I deleted a previous attempt at RfA, thanked me earlier this month for deleting it because they knew it would not stand a chance. Two weeks later and I find a live request here. This candidate appears to be collecting hats as shown by their request of almost every bit here on Wikipedia within the past month. OTRS, Abuse response, Account creator, File mover #1, File mover #2, Autopatroller, Rollback, and Reviewer. This message was concerning to me, as well, following this discussion. This user's first created RfA, which I deleted, was created by a sockpuppet with no prior edits (User:Jaiwilcox), of whom SunCountryGuy01 still claims is one of his friends who gained access to his computer. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose WP:NOTNOW. You need more experience and try reapplying in six months for adminship. WayneSlam 00:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, per HJ, Eagles, the bizarre edits to Valfontis' RfA, and the "surprise RfA" the candidate sprung on someone else a couple of weeks ago. 28bytes (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per WP:SNOW and reversion of the RFA closure, while Baseball Watcher certainly closed it TO early -- it should not have been you to re-open. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 01:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose - Candidate does not meet my criteria. As everyone else said, come back in about six months if you're still interested that way we can see if you have a firm grasp of our policies. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 01:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category